list_nfs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints at access scoping ('the user can access') but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how results are paginated, or what constitutes a filesystem in the return. This minimal disclosure leaves significant behavioral expectations unstated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains zero fluff. Every word earns its place by conveying resource type and scope.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, with only two optional parameters and no output schema. The description states the basic purpose but omits what a returned NFS filesystem looks like, any usage caveats, or related tools. It is minimally viable but lacks richness for a fully self-contained description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (permission and provisioned). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('NFS filesystems') and adds a clear scope ('the user can access'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_buckets or list_lustre. It precisely communicates what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description simply states the action without context, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and sibling list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.